ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

The present revision has been filed under Section 26(2) of M.P. Municipalities Act 1961 read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. The present petition has been filed by the successful candidate who has been removed from the post by the Election Tribunal of 1st Additional District Judge, Nagaud, District Satna, in EP No. 1/ 2000 vide order dated 22.08.2025.

3. The election tribunal has held that on account of suppression of material facts and particulars in affidavit submitted along with the nomination form, the petitioner is deemed to have conducted corrupt practice and therefore, it was held that the nomination of the petitioner was liable to be rejected, and he is deemed to have committed a corrupt practice. Consequently, the Election Tribunal set aside the election of the petitioner as councillor of Ward No. 13 of Nagar Parishad Nagod, District Satna. The counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that he does not challenge the finding of the Election Tribunal whereby the election of the present petitioner has been declared as null and void for having submitted incorrect information in nomination form and affidavit as to the pending criminal cases and income of the petitioner. The present petition is being pressed only to the extent of the consequential direction made by the Election Tribunal in directing that the present respondent No. 1 who was the runner up in the election, be declared elected in place of petitioner. It is argued that once the election of the petitioner has been set aside on the ground that his nomination was bad in law and that he has committed corrupt practice, therefore the natural consequence would have been to order re-election for the seat, and the election tribunal could not have directed the runner up to be elected.

4. It is argued that the petitioner had obtained 337 votes whereas the respondent No. 1 had obtained 293 votes. If the 337 votes hold in favour of the petitioner are deemed to have got wasted or thrown away on account of declaring the election of the petitioner as null and void, then no consequential direction could have been given to declare the runners up as elected candidate because it cannot be anticipated that the electorate who has travelled to the polling station on the date of election would have voted, if the petitioner was not in the fray as contesting candidate. Therefore, fresh election ought to have been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that law in this regard is very well settled and has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prakash Khandre v. Vijay Kumar Khandre, (2002) 5 SCC 568, so also in the case of Muniraju Gowda P.M. v. Munirathna, (2020) 10 SCC 192. It is therefore, argued that this part of the impugned order passed by the election tribunal be set-aside, whereby the election tribunal has declared the first runner up i.e. present respondent No. 1 as elected candidate and the fresh election in the constituency be ordered.

5. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that there is a sea of difference between Section 101 of the Representation of People Act 1951 and Section 24 of M.P. Municipalities Act. It is argued that as per Section 101 of the Representation of People Act 1951, the election tribunal under the Act of 1951 can pass order to declare another candidate to be duly elected if the High Court deciding the election petition is of opinion that upon deleting the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice, the petitioner or any other candidate would have obtained majority of valid votes. It is argued that on the other hand, the language of Section 24 of M.P. Municipality Act is totally different because as per Section 24 of Act of 1961, the word employed as per Section 24(2)(b), are that after deleting the votes obtained by the returned candidate, if the election petitioner or any other candidate would have obtained majority of valid votes, then he can